Matthew 26:28 English Standard Version (ESV)
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Christ never uses the words, "I died for your sins." He lived for the salvation and betterment of mankind. If Christ died for people's sins, then Moses and Muhammed died for people's sins.
But, I think the important aspect is the persecution that each of them faced, but that they all persevered for the betterment of mankind.
I think "dying for your sins" or even "dying for the forgiveness your sins" is open to interpretation. A lot of people take this to mean that it meant it was absolutely necessary and essential for Jesus to die in order for God to forgive people, that if he didn't, God couldn't accept them. They assume it doesn't require further explanation.
In the context of that passage, nowhere is it said that Jesus' death alone, and only his death, could allow God to forgive people. It simply says that he would simply
die for (in pouring out his blood) their sins.
The first-century Christians didn't necessarily believe that one person exclusively had to die for them, or that this act exclusively was necessary for God to accept them. The important thing was that someone had died
for them, and that it had something to do with their sins.
It is important, therefore to see the event in context. Why was the crucifixion important to these people, and what relevance does it have for us today? Why did they want to remember it?
If Christianity has so much influence today, and if someone chose to preserve the memory of it, it's not necessarily because "Jesus died for your sins." Jesus died for someone else's sins. People wanted to remember that.
But again, it's not even a matter of whether it's necessary for someone to die for a person to be forgiven. One would be overlooking the possibility that Jesus' death served a political purpose. It may be true that it is sufficient to believe you're forgiven to acquire forgiveness from God, but even then the crucifixion doesn't lose its significance. Could the crucifixion not have been God's declaration of support for those who believed they were forgiven, but were told by their religious leaders that they were not?
I would say that it's unreasonable, after having been slaves of Israel's religious leaders, that a person would then give his soul away to be enslaved again by the idea that he had to believe Jesus' death was necessary for his being accepted by God. I think it's more reasonable to think that Jesus died so that that person could be confident that God had already accepted him, that he would be justified in thinking that God accepted him no matter what people told him. It was between him and God alone. In that sense Jesus died as a martyr defending people's individuality and individual identity.
Like I mentioned earlier: the Christian sources, including the Roman Catholic Church resources, ACCEPT that the Holy Bible have suffered changes: revisions, additions and deletions. This itself is enough to say that the Bible had been corrupted.
By "corrupted", you make it sound like something has been desecrated, or that the Christian Texts are like a structure or building that collapses because a pillar has been pulled, cut down or removed. That, I believe, is to misunderstand the function and purpose of the Christians Texts, which is to record and preserve the memory of an experience that existed in the first century. As long as the experience is correctly and accurately conveyed, the Texts serve their purpose and function.
The question to ask is whether the essential meaning is still there, and that's debatable. It depends a lot on whether Christians interpret their own Texts correctly. That's because Islam's view on Christianity depends on how Christians see Christianity, just as we depend on the views of Jews to interpret Judaism and likewise Muslims for Islam. The first-century Christians did not anticipate the many ways their Texts would be interpreted and used, and they therefore didn't cover all loopholes. We have to go the distance, climb the mountain and slay the dragon in rediscovering first-century Christianity, and thereby rediscover what it all meant . . . if we see that as our purpose in life.
Islam's view of Christianity will be wrong if Christians have misunderstood Christianity, and this will undermine any argument against Christianity, and likewise Judaism. It's the same for Christians looking into Islam. If Muslims have misunderstood Islam, anything said by Christians against Islam loses its authority. It's only until you, as an adherent of one faith, have full appreciation of the meaning of another, that you can speak with authority on the other. I have to say, I have never met anyone who knows and understands
both Islam and Christianity well enough to comment on the legitimacy or validity of either and convince me that that theory he has (whatever it will be) is correct. In most cases, I found that knowledge and experience in one or the other was rather limited.
Most people don't even get around to fully appreciating their own faith. I wonder whether there is any point. There is the argument that it is wrong to believe we cannot figure out which one has more validity, that it nullifies the validity of one's faith to think that way. I disagree. If nobody can figure it out, I think it's reasonable to assume and that nobody will ever solve the problem. God wouldn't make unreasonable demands on us feeble humans.
This idea that the Christian Texts have been corrupted is fueled by the idea that one must invalidate one faith to validate another. Who said so? Why not just let Jews be Jews, Christians be Christians and Muslims be Muslims?
Won't God look after us all in the end?
It's probably more correct to say we've misinterpreted our own Texts than to say we've actually "corrupted" them. If the Texts convey the same essential meaning, then the "corruption theory" goes out the window. Islam should not rely on this theory to affirm and assert its own legitimacy. I don't think it helps anyone to say a text is corrupted because you may be overlooking the possibility that it's been misinterpreted. If a text is misinterpreted and you base a corruption theory on a misinterpretation of a text then your theory is baseless. Why not just let Christians quietly figure out what their faith means?
That is not to say . . . we shouldn't listen to what Jews and Muslims have to say . . . but in the end . . . we decide.
